I am not assuming that. However, what benefit is there to having some percentage do so? All that does is make budgets less predictable and more subject to the whims and panicky behavior of the public.
What percentage of the public are you assuming will choose the
option to directly allocate their taxes? What percentage of the purse will these "skeptics" control?
Even more bizarrely, you're trying to set up a situation in which the government has to compete with itself for funding goals. Imagine Samsung is the only provider of products. Any products. And Samsung's cell phone research guys have to compete with Samsung's television guys. Why is Samsung competing against itself?
If we created a market in the public sector... then the EPA and the DoD would have to compete for tax dollars? Yeah, that's true. So what? Don't they already compete for tax dollars? With the current system it's up to congress to decide who should win the competition but in a pragmatarian system it would be up to consumers to decide who should win the competition.
Next Ebola scare, you'd have the CDC being over-allocated funds by 400%.
Again, what percentage of the purse will the skeptics control? Come up with a coherent story and stick with it.
And then there's the ludicrous logistical issue. Like half the population files tax returns in the last week. I recall you claiming some sort of website could be set up to show how much each department wanted and how much had been allocated, but that wouldn't work the way the IRS processes returns.
Right now you can make a tax-deductible donation to most, if not all, government organizations. In a pragmatarian system you would be able to make a tax-payment to all government organizations. Why do you think the logistics would be ludicrous? Again, what percentage of the public are you assuming will choose the option to directly allocate their taxes? Again, come up with a coherent story and stick with it.
My counter argument is that anybody trying to compare our current government to North ****ing Korea is an idiot.
You agree that we don't have a consumer economy in our public sector. Therefore... we logically have a command economy in our public sector. There's no real difference between our public sector's economy and North Korea's entire economy.
Command economies prevent consumers from easily exiting from organizations. What's the problem with blocking the exits? Nothing... if you want to assume that organizations will always go in beneficial directions. But if you want to assume that organizations will always go in beneficial directions... then why bother blocking the exits?
If you want to assume that the DoD will always go in a beneficial direction... then why bother blocking the exit? You think that everybody's going to rush for the exit even though the DoD is going in a beneficial direction? You think that everybody is going to boycott the DoD despite the fact that they all benefit from the DoD's direction?
Right now you're really certain that I'm going in the really wrong direction. Therefore... what? You should be forced to board my crazy train? And then you should be blocked from exiting my crazy train?
Right now I'm really certain that I'm going in the really right direction. Therefore... what? I should force you to board my sane train? And then I should block you from exiting my sane train?
I don't want to eject you from the congress train. All I want is for people to have the freedom to exit from the congress train. And you really don't want people to have this freedom.
So again...
What percentage of the public are you assuming will choose the
option to exit from the congress train? What percentage of the purse will these "skeptics" control?